June 28, 2011

The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

That sounds like Schneider interviewed Prosser, but we're only told that he had "multiple sources with first-hand knowledge."

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs... During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

Indeed, if we believe Bradley said "That’s only because you broke us apart" when someone pulled her back from behind, it would seem that the "pressure" that would have occurred but didn't would have been the result of her forward movement toward Prosser. That's the evidence a criminal defense lawyer would milk if there were an actual trial here.

During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.

Bizarre. What an immense breakdown of collegiality! And given this horrible, complicated incident, why did anyone choose to incur the damage to the court's reputation by dumping it into the press? As Schneider notes, if Bradley had initiated any kind of formal criminal procedure, Prosser would have had procedural protections. Instead, "the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story." Who were the 3 sources? We don't know whether all (or any) of the 3 sources were eyewitnesses, but if they were, it's hard not to conclude that they were Bradley and Abrahamson. There would still need to be one more source antagonistic to Prosser. Maybe all the sources were court personnel who heard about it second hand, and the Center for Investigative Journalism based its story entirely on hearsay. I hope so.

I would say that someone will resign over this, but that won't happen. The political stakes are too high and no one is going to willingly budge from any position of high office in the current climate. You have to vote them out, and as we saw with the Kloppenberg fiasco, even that has become a long, drawn-out process.

What an immense breakdown of collegiality! And given this horrible, complicated incident, why did anyone choose to incur the damage to the court's reputation by dumping it into the press?

Because “collegiality” be D@mned, because the “reputation” of the court is a moot point, we have to protect our Progressive PoV, and prevent it from slipping away! Some things are more important than collegiality and professionalism…namely Progressive Victory!

If Leuders really did fabricate by omission or refuse to corroborate his version of the story, the only thing left for him is to take employment in some Orwellian-titled, Dem-controlled, Soros-funded faux-journalism entity and use it as a cover to attempt to bring down a duly-elected Governor and thwart his policies and the politicians and justices that uphold them, policies that Leuders claims "can never be forgiven or forgotten"....oh, wait...

The problem is obviously Abrahamson manipulating her own Collegial group to gain control of the Court and Prosser standing up against her. Bradley was a pawn in Abrahamson's game doing battle for her Queen who is hiding behind Bradley's skirt. The misuse of the phrase "choke hold" by Abrahamson is pure propaganda. Control of an attackers head by using hands to push them against their neck is not choking.

It's really too late for that. The damage is done, and there's no undoing it. It's a 4-3 court that is approaching (if not already at) the point of breakdown. Parsing out blame will just be an exercising in deciding whether the person doing the parsing is with the 4 or the 3.

This is far worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle of Dec 2000, where the SCOTUS was widely criticized (by the Dem side) for rank partisanship. The SCOTUS as an institution was never at the point of self-immolation, because neither the 5 in the majority nor the 4 in dissent were willing to push things that far. These WI justices seem to have lost sight completely of the institutional damage their brawling is causing the court.

Reading the new reporting makes me think that Bradley is gone and Abrahamson is not going to be re-elected.

Bradley, as demonstrated in the Roggensack letter, has been a destructive force on the court. Her action in charging at Prosser with fists raised is as injudicious as can be imagined and, together with the behavior cited by Justice Roggensack, shows her to be a deeply frustrated or childish person who is quite obviously unrestrained by norms of behavior - "It is my way or the highway" - that we don't accept from adolescents, much less justices.

Barring something more coming out about her actions trying to manipulate the court and the elections, Abrahamson will no doubt weather the storm she helped create. Her inability to control the court and maintain her own decorum, much less the Court's in general, shows that she is not able to bear the weight of her office. Her scholarship is dubious at best - viz. the lack of contrary reasoning and citations in the PEU case. What she surely has in abundance, however, is misplaced sense of her importance. She is on the court to support Democratic causes and doesn't need to be brilliant to do so. Rather, she simply needs to be there. She is without shame, but, having identified Abrahamson as a Democratic hack, I repeat myself.

Prosser, it should be considered by those on the left, now has an axe to grind that can only harm leftist causes in the future. Tar him with false and misleading campaign material and he is no doubt angry, but charge publicly that he committed a battery and let slip the journalistic dogs of war to tear up whatever remains of his reputation and tell me it is not be reasonable to judge Leftists more harshly.

"These WI justices seem to have lost sight completely of the institutional damage their brawling is causing the court."

1/2 right. It's pretty clear where the disfunction is and where it started. Just look at the "when"...which is when the court went 4-3 to the conservative side. And it's just another instance of the disfunction of the left and the long term damage to institutions:

1) Now okay to flea the state to uphold the legislation that you don't like2) Lose an election...recall, recall, recall. We will now have perpetual elections in WI. 3) Every election that can have a recount will have a recount.

Abrahamson is 78 and this term ends 2019. She will not be serving another term and may not even complete this one if her beloved protege Bradley were forced to resign. These two power hungry doorknobs really screwed up.

It appears as though both Bradley and Abrahamson may have to step down now. I am not sure the Chief Justice's actions are not the worst of the offenses that were committed. The others had the excuse of being in the heat of the moment but Squirrely had plenty of time to think about how she wanted to handle things and this is what she came up with... leaking to a partisan left-wing outfit a self-serving version of the story to tar who she perceives to be a political opponent.

Also, it sounds like there was a deal to release the ruling after a week and the Chief Justice wanted to renege on it. That part is still a little unclear but it fits with what a partisan hack would do so I assume it was what Abrahamson was trying to do.

It sounds like there was quite some commotion in the building for some time, and I am sure everybody in it were all eyes and certainly ears following the row between the justices.Finding witnesses to talk would not be all that difficult, though the reliability might be questionable.

Wow. Bradley was so pissed off that her internal take down of Prosser didn't succeed that she chose the nuclear option of going to the press, as a secret source. Bradley's the one who needs Anger Management, and to resign in disgrace.

“During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling.”

That’s a despicable, but very clever ploy. Counseling is the default, least restrictive corrective action and is difficult to argue against. It would have validated Bradley’s victimhood and immediately re-set the left’s “Shame!” and “Tsk-Tsking” mode.

Good for (some of) the judges for having the backbone to not meekly go along.

A few things in the article are of interest to me: Justice Bradley did go to the police the same day this happened. That fact supports her version of the events. Also, it sounds as if the door to the room may have been open, so there may be witnesses who heard what happened. Finally, the author notes that six justices were presetn: "four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser's version of events" He has the count wrong - three plus Prosser, not four - but he appears to be open to the suggestion that the justices would take sides rather than tell the truth. For everyone who claims C.J. Abrahamson is only backing up J. Bradley's lie, I see no reason the other three members of the court could not be doing the same as to J. Prosser's version - and he has never actually said what happened, he has only spoken through other sources.

The four judge majority is seeking the Chief. Bradley charges out of her office shaking her clenched fist and "assaulted" (common law definition of threat of force with the capability to carry it out) prosser.

a far cry from some fantasy event inside her office where he comes across a desk to throttle her :)

For Bradley's neck to get into position ... me thinks she had to stand up out of her chair ... While I do believe "she flung herself violently at Prosser."

Shirley Abrahamason is totally out of control, here! Thinking she could just maneuver a decision she disliked "out" in such a way ... everybody got angry at her.

The "he's choking me" bullshit ... is just stage managed.

And, even made funnier with Fat Tubbs as the stand in "demonstration" model. Was he taking notes?

What a loony bin.

Not that I'm complaining!

I love it that there's enough gossip out there ... for journalists to be joining in the fray. And, for something local to go VIRAL. Just for global effect ... this story is not just carried by its legs ... But by the fact people are getting more and more pissed off at females who yell falsehoods.

There was dysfunction on the court for a while but things came to a head when Louis Butler was defeated by Michael Gableman. This tilted the court's balance and Abrahamson and Bradley did everything in their power to get Gableman to step down (trumped up ethics violations, etc).

Its really interesting to read these stories because it clear to me that Ann doesn't say what she knows; Louis Butler is currently on staff of UW Law School.

How can she order him out of her office...if he is already outside her office?

One of the SCOW justices is a liar. Unlike Bill Leuders, who is a noted non-partisan investigative journalist, I don't care who resigns. Walker simply appoints a conservative to take their place. Worst-case scenario is status quo.

So the Liberal broad initiated the violence, lied about it, and then tried to extort Prosser with threats of a "next step"? Sounds like a typical day for a WI Democrat. Are any of you not huge flaming assholes? Seriously, is there a single decent human being in your entire Party? Whatever, the stupid crone should resign.

Wow, these new details from the NRO [NOT BIASED!] is exactly what Prosser and the right wing would hope to hear, and to keep up the faith. A little "SOROS!" thrown in and these suckers are sure to smack it.

Wow, these new details from the NRO [NOT BIASED!] is exactly what Prosser and the right wing would hope to hear, and to keep up the faith. A little "SOROS!" thrown in and these suckers are sure to smack it.

Bradley is an embarassment. I'm not sure Prosser is that much better in terms of termperament, but at least his lack of judgment and anger was in a private conversation (thank God he had rational witnesses present who could restrain and "refute" the claims by the whackos Bradley and Abrahamson).

Bradley, on the other hand, deliberated about how to proceed for ten days and then decides to leak the story to a far left media guy and, in the process, significantly diminish her own stature and the stature of the court.

On a specific point, if Prosser actually was outide Bradley's office, how does her story that she was demanding he leave her office hold up/make sense?

I still would like to know the relative sizes of the people. I read Prosser was only 5'2". Is that possible? And how big is Bradley. If she is 6 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier, and yelling at him nose to nose with a clenched fist, that is quite a scene (and I suppose a defense for Prosser). If Bradley is overweight, a day with blogs talking about how much she weighs would be an appropriate further embarassment.

A lot of craziness has gone on in Wisconsin, but I can't imagine that these people don't have enought sense to see that this ends in any way other than quietly being closed so the all the people involved can try to get past the embarassment.

Bizarre. What an immense breakdown of collegiality! And given this horrible, complicated incident, why did anyone choose to incur the damage to the court's reputation by dumping it into the press?

Because THAT'S WHAT LIBERALS DO! They can't just let matters be - and they definitely can't lose. They have to get revenge, right or wrong. That's who they are.

That's one of the main reasons I'm always so hot on them. Because I know. You can try to be cool with them, but you'll be making a mistake. You have to do the "double tap" because thinking they're going to stay down is silly. They must be crushed and stripped of power. They will settle for nothing less.

Look at the liberals on this blog. Does it pay to try to reason with them? Does ridicule work? Has anyone here seen a conversion of any kind from Left to Right? No - and you won't.

So they must be stripped of power, watched like hawks, and/or, figuratively, put down.

More details emerge from the notes taken Monday by Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs during a meeting about the incident. The private notes were leaked to the media by an unnamed source.

I got up and flew at the little yard troll, who was sitting there stupidly in his black robe, with the speed and fury of a valkyrie wearing a metal bra with impossible leather straps that tie in the back and riding a white horse that can fly, and slammed my stomach directly into his clenched fist. And then I deftly punched my face directly onto his whimperingly defensive other fist. His pathetic mewls sounded through the chamber as I then tore my eyes across his clawed sharpened fingernails, and caused my entangling hair to ensnarl his helpless womanly hands as a hopelessly bound prisoner, tugging on them tormentingly so that his arms nearly left their sockets, then finally releasing his hands and before he could regain his senses I threw my strong long sensually stretched neck directly into his pathetically grasping hands forcing them closed and then twisted my body and collapsed my knees so that his arm then became hopelessly wrapped around my pillar-like neck as a weak defeated python wraps a hare, whereupon I held my breath until my eyes rolled back and he sheepishly submitted. Then I came here and gallantly provided my report describing his insane unreasonable aggression which is proof of his disqualifying unfitness for office.

I meant the people invovled should to smart enough to make sure this ends quietly and hope people forget about it.

I supposed the court will be okay with four conservatives in control, but I would shudder if I had an important case being decided by Abrahamson and Bradley. Do they use three judge panels that would give those two kooks control over cases, subject to en banc reconsideration?

Old Dad nailed it - the Schneider story has the ring of truth, and when all the facts are ultimately revealed I think the story will look very much like the one Schneider reported.

I believe Supreme Court judges can be recalled, but I think the proper action would be for Bradley to be impeached. The legislature would be well within its rights to remove her because of the damage she has done to the institution. Physically charging another judge, suggesting counseling for the judge she charged who tried to defend himself, not filing charges but attempting to try Prosser in the press, undermining collegiality - her misdeeds go well beyond unprofessional, they are plainly destructive and the legislature needs to send a message.

Things are looking quite bad for Bradley at this point. If the quote from Bradley is correct ("that's only because you broke us apart") then the last few days of comments by her are outright lies. We still don't know enough to make final conclusions, but if this is at all accurate (and it *sounds* reasonable) then I have a difficult time seeing this as ending well for Bradley.

Who were the 3 sources? We don't know whether all (or any) of the 3 sources were eyewitnesses, but if they were, it's hard not to conclude that they were Bradley and Abrahamson. There would still need to be one more source antagonistic to Prosser.

Judge Maryann Sumi. And I'll bet that she was the one who leaked it, having heard a second-hand version from Chief Justice Abrahamson.

Why Soros is allowed to manipulate American politics from top to bottom with unlimited resources escapes me.

A little thing called “The First Amendment” and the idea of a ”liberal democracy.” For the same reason we let Communists and Nazi’s have parties and compete in elections. I may violently, in a rhetorical sense, disagree with Soros, but I would never deny his RIGHT to affect Public Policy. To adopt any other policy is to be George Soros, in a different, but equally malevolent way.

There better be, otherwise you're toast. I've lost jobs over crap like this. Hell, during my divorce, the only thing that got me out of the restraining order was the fact there were witnesses to my marriage unraveling, who proved she was a liar.

It sounds like Justice Prosser, a 68 year old man of slight physical stature, was standing in the doorway - thus neither in nor out - with 3 other justices behind him peering over his shoulders, so that he could not back up, when Justice Bradley, 60 years old and a rather tall woman, flew at him with her arms up, whether to hit or push him, or to scratch his eyes out, and he put his hands up to keep her off, so his palms would hit her collarbones and his thumbs would at least be near her throat.

I wish Bill Leuders were here to clear all this up, in a non-partisan, fair and investigative journalistic fashion. I just know he really wants to.

6/28/11 1:14 PM"

Heh!

Hey, wait a second! Here's a thought.

Maybe Joanne Kloppenburg was the third source. Given her peculiar judgment in insisting on the strapped taxpayers footing the bill for an unwinnable recall, perhaps she was the one who called Leuders and told him something like this:

"I am ecstatic, and my supporters are ecstatic, and I am looking forward to being a Justice on the Supreme Court, once Justice Prosser releases that choke hold from the neck of poor Justice Ann Bradley!"

Patrick did not get "in a male driver's face," though she certainly intended to do just that. However, a steward's marshal headed her off before she could get to him.

Also she was entirely justified in wanting to have a discussion about pit lane driving etiquette in that case. And Patrick is not quite 100 lbs. - some losers gripe that her size and lack of mass gives her an unfair advantage on the track, and she should be made to carry weights - and she was going up against a quite sturdy young male, so the situation was really quite different.

The complaint with Patrick actually was that she should not hit, or threaten to hit a male driver, justified or not, because, as a gentleman, he would not be able to hit her back.

The prime mover in this fracas seems to be Chief Justice Abrahamsom. She has the duty to keep order in her court, and it's obvious that she hasn't reined in any of the antagonistic personalities who have been in conflict for months or even years. She is the one who apparently reneged on a deal to delay the release of the verdict, and according to her dissent she wanted to delay the release for several more months for what can only be partisan politics. She's 78 years old, and her judgment appears to be poor -- it's plausible that she is exhibiting the symptoms of mental decline. If anyone should resign, Abrahamson should.

Prosser speaks [leaked from testimony to Dane County Sherriff's Office:

So we was outside Bradley's door, my peeps and me. See, the two bitches set us up. We all agreed on the QT that the decision would hit the papers on Tuesday, but those goddam harpies was draggin' their claws. So's I'm a little hot headed, but that Bradley dame is crazy, and we're screamin' like normal at each other when that freakin' amazon comes chargin' at me. I seen from past experience that she had a pretty good right hand, so's I raised my left. See I coulda dropped her with a little right cross, but how woulda that looked in the papers. So's I blocked her right and started to shove her when I realized that my right was on those saggy feedbags, so's I slid my hand up to her shoulder, just like I seen in TSA patdowns at the airport. You oughtta see how those sickos get after the old ladies. Anyways, just then, Abrahamson grabs the crazy bitch, and pulls her a way. She's old as hell but still pretty strong. Anyways, Bradley starts screamin' bloody murder about being choked and felt up. Well, we all started laughin', and I says "you wish..you ain't had any action since the Carter Administration." Well, that cracked 'em up. Even old sour puss Shirley giggled. So that was that. I gotta admit, Bradley is crazy, but she ain't half bad lookin', so's I get her aside, and asks her if she wants to be sequestered in my chambers, if you catch my drift. So's we settle the little matter like grown'ups with a little squeeze box action. See, that's where I messed up. On Sunday we was supposed to play the hokey pokey, if you get my drift, but my card game ran late, and well. I knew she was crazy, but you's sees what I'm up against here" [end of statement].

"...mariner and she went to the police the same day that it happened..."

And the police did what......yeah.

Lets assume it all happened as was reported. What a fucking embarrasment for Wisconsin. When two state supreme court justices act like this, its no wonder the protesters there look like petulant children.

No. Dispersing the blame serves no purpose except to spare the actual guilty party. If Abrahamson wants to resign with Bradley, great. The person who MUST resign is Bradley. Not just for the half-assed assault, but because now the entire State knows that she's a committed liar who tried to destroy Prosser to cover up for her own violent tendencies. I know that people don't care much about truth, justice, etc. in Madison, but you are still part of the United States, have some fucking self-respect.

Of interest in the story is that three of the majoroty judges wanted to publish earlier, but Prosser, wanting NOT to stoke the political fires thought he had a deal with Abrahamson to wait till Monday. However she (perhaps with Bradley's support) reneges.

So Prosser was not at the far right of this dispute, but rather was attempting until that afternoon to do the consensus building job of the Chief. She on the other hand was a witch....

Sounds like Bradley had a PC media strategy early on. And, if this version holds up, it ain't looking good for the bad guys.

Ann Althouse said...

What an immense breakdown of collegiality!

I've often thought collegiality - the Old Boys (and Girls) Club of Lefty Democrats and RINOs that says you never make a fuss if the Lefties want something - is one of the worst enemies of the people today.

Bradley and Abrahamson are on a mission to get Prosser. They're acting like partisan activists, not jurists, which shouldn't come as a surprise. No doubt, that's how they view their role on the court as well. They both should go.

Garage, don't you think it's time to start walking back some of your claims? You're looking like more of an idiot than you usually do, and that's truly saying something. You set the bar so low for the Weiner affair that I thought you'd never beat it (ahem). And here we are, less than a month later. You're a never-ending font of pure entertainment.

Prosser had a gun! AND he made anti-Semitic and anti-Gay remarks and dropped the “N-Bomb”! He must go, he’s a previously convicted Misogynist who coddles Child pRon Pervects! RLY it’s true…I know…I have 47 unnamed sources who support this story!

I think we have a split decision on the Stupid vs. Evil paradigm that serves as a universal measuring device for Leftism. Bradley was Stupid during her "fists raised" charge, and then Evil when she lied about it and tried to bully Prosser into bullshit "counseling". Abrahamson seems squarely on the Evil side, abusing her position of trust to play scuzzy political games.Say what you want about Wisconsin politics, they're a great petri dish in which to observe the worst of human nature.

Since when has it been the norm for 'a bigger man' to stand meekly and be berated and physically assaulted?

I'm just saying that when someone is acting like an idiot and trying to egg you on into a fight, it is far more respectful to walk away. And when you do they are left looking like the fool. If Prosser would have walked away instead of pushing back, this story would have only been about Bradley. Instead he pushed her away and made room for this 'scandal.' In the long run it doesn't matter that she was the aggressor because most people won't follow this story beyond the original blurb of 'Prosser Chokes Bradley.'

Oh, Garage, playing coy again, pretending that everything he's said in the past doesn't exist. Lately it seems like that's all he does. It's like his entire mind is a memory hole. I think even Orwell would be impressed.

I should say it is the decision most deserving of respect. I respect the man that walks away from an unnecessary fight, just as much as the man that wins the necessary fight. This was (in my opinion) not a fight that required violence to resolve. When Bradley begins acting violently, Prosser had two options: 1) Use physical force to defend himself or 2) Walk away. If he walked away she looks like a loon and he looks like and adult. But you are right, that is jut my opinion.

In the long run it doesn't matter that she was the aggressor because most people won't follow this story beyond the original blurb of 'Prosser Chokes Bradley.'

Oh hell no. That is exactly how the Soros complex works. Just levy the charge, unsubstantiated, and recycle the same charge over and over. That is what Truth Dig tried to do with the Valerie Plame story.

Excuse me, GM, are you talking about me? You're a liar who has been laying down shitty alibis for the scumbag Unionistas since Day 1, and all the proof in the world is a quick "down scroll" away. I don't feel obligated to constantly prove that gravity exists, similarly I don't give a shit about proving you a liar over and over again. Anyone with half a brain already knows it.

Prosser and another former legislative leader, Joseph Strohl, acknowledge in the filing that they used their taxpayer-funded caucus staffs for campaigning -- the same type of behavior for which Jensen faces three felonies and a misdemeanor charge. The two said maintaining their party's grip on power in the Legislature was a key part of their duties as leaders.

VetHusbFath, are you unfamiliar with basic physics or common terms such as "walk" and "run"? You can't walk away from someone running at you. It just doesn't work. I know you're looking to put some of the blame on Prosser, but it's a ludicrous angle that you're taking.

The last time I walked away from a fight, the guy then jumped me from behind. And so that was the last time I walked away from a fight. And maybe it's just a coincidence, but that's the last time I had a fight. It's almost as if walking away encourages fighting, and standing your ground discourages it. But no, that must be too simplistic.

And hands on the collarbone to hold an opponent at a distance is not only not choking, it's just about the least aggressive counter move possible. Frankly, it leaves you vulnerable to counterattacks with the feet. It's also the weakest "choke hold" imaginable, with a wide range of easy escape moves. You don't do that to threaten or injure, merely to calm someone down.

Now for a slight defense of Justice Bradley: if you press forward into such a hold or if it's done clumsily, you can end up with thumb pressure on the lower larynx. It's an easy-to-hit pressure point that will make you cough and gag; and if you've never experienced it before, you might confuse it with choking. So it's possible she could have imagined choking even where no witness saw choking.

Let's assume for a second that she didn't rush him with intent to push/shove/strike. She just rushed up and got nose to nose with him. Doing that is akin to "hit me". You simply don't step that close to someone unless you are prepared for a physical altercation of some kind.

Unless you presume you're immune to this basic understanding of human interactive via your station or your sex, or both.

Keyword: Works. And it works because the average american has the attention span of a goldfish. Take for instance Sarah Palin. Most Americans believe that she said that she can see Russia from her backyard, because of a comic skit on Saturday Night Live. You could tell that wasn't a quote all day long, but the fact is their attention spans were only long enough to watch the SNL skit, and not the actual interview. I'm not saying that the Soros complex is right. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play into it and then try to defend ourselves with intellectual arguments. Intellectual arguments are long and boring.

The whole instinct to spread the blame reminds me of the pathetic little "scoreless" soccer leagues out there. Let's pretend that losing is winning, that wrong is right and that victims are perpetrators. That way nobody feels bad, which is the most important thing. Get a fucking grip.

Maybe if I hadn't been watching this exact behavior by 3 old crones that ran a youth/horse project in our area, maybe I would be surprised by this behavior.

But, I have personally observed the manipulating, screaming at public events/meetings, "raggin" over the loud speaker at shows, I'll lie for you if you lie for me...honestly, their entitlement to berate is something to behold! The kids are great...these old ladies...they are seriously demented and self righteous in their right to run the world.

So you've got 2 old crones, with entitlement progressive idealogy, entitled position of power, a death grip on decision making,no sense of humor and the self righteous take no prisoners zeal that only a post, post, post menopausal woman can conjur up...a toxic cocktail.

We had to vote them out and take their "gavel" away and they've been on a rampage ever since. We can laugh/duck and run, they're not making life and death decisions on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

And I hereby declare my right to hold in abeyance the possibility that she may indeed have been source number 3, and, further, to declare I got it first if it turns out to be correct!

Of course, the pretend quote I wrote and attributed to Kloppy is still entirely speculative, but what the hell, the possibility she was the source for Leuders is as good a guess as anyone else's version of events.

Do you really want to argue with me about the number of 'defensive' positions Prosser could have taken instead of putting his hands on her? "Walk Away" is a figurative term, and there are many ways he could have removed himself from the situation without putting up an aggressive defense.

. . . I hereby temporarily withdraw the sarcastic aspect of my comment, posted above, in which I suggested in fun that Joanne Kloppenburg may have been the 3rd source in the Bill Leuders original "choker-gate" story.

Not to mention the fact that Kloppenburg wears those choker scarves, which apply pressure to her throat, causing her to speak like Georgette on Mary Tyler Moore, and giving her both the means and the motive to coach Walsh-Bradley into telling Leuders that she, Walsh-Bradley, had pressure applied to her throat . . .

You really think that he had the time, the opportunity and the willingness to attempt to assault her when she charged him? No, you don't. You're just making up absurd situations to make Prosser look bad. Should he have ducked his head and head-butted her in the sternum? Turned his back and let her attack his unprotected posterior? By all accounts, she was screaming and rushing him, yet you persist in pretending that Prosser had all the time in the world to decide how to react. Simpleton.

It's difficult to find authoritative information about Justice Bradley's height and weight. One site suggests 6'3" 235 but I think it's a mix up. I'm guessing she is well under six feet, a reasonable assumption for a woman her age, but probably does dress out right around 200 pounds. If I'm looking at the right photo and please forgive me if I'm not, it shows a smiling and yet oddly combative, sow eyed, curley headed, bottle blonde, damp faced rather elderly looking woman with a hump-like back and a large goiter or wenn supported by a floral chin strap. Justice Ziegler she's not. I have heard others say that she is actually quite an attractive woman despite her formidable size and compliment her for not sweating much for a woman of her size. Who is right? You decide. The probative value of all this is that Justice Prosser could not get his tiny little hands around the stout expanse that is Ms. Bradley's neck. Case closed.

Ruy,No, I thought you were referring to the incident at Indy where some young tiger touched her tires and took her out of the race in the pit lane. Patrick definitely was not happy, and though she still had her helmet on so you could not see her face, the body language clearly indicated she had more on her mind than just telling him what she thought of it.However, a stewards marshal intercepted her and gently forced her off course, which she afterwards admitted was a good thing, and she appreciated it.

Maybe he should have extended his left arm at the same time he side stepped and did a 'close line maneuver' on her.

Or...just as she reached maximum momentum bent down to check his shoelaces and have her go ass over tea kettle over his back. Bonus point if she is wearing a skirt and everyone gets to see her underwear.

Or....grab her hands and launch into a romantic tango transferring the dethorned rose from his lips to hers(that he conveniently keeps under his robes...along with the pies); executing a deep dip at the end where he accidentally bumps her head against the corner of the desk.